2024 (6) TMI 1171 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - order passed without considering the Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheets and the Ledger produced before him - HELD THAT - There is no merit in the challenge to the impugned order in this Writ Petition, as the respondents cannot be found fault with for passing the impugned order. After the earlier order dated 30.05.2019, which was set aside by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2021, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to have got ready with the reply. Instead, the petitioner waited till the issuance of pre-revision notice dated 31.08.2021 and has merely submitted only copies of Ledger and Profit and Loss Account. The petitioner should have filed a clear reply as to how there was no case made out by the respondents. That apart, in the counter affidavit, the second respondent has also stated that the petitioner has suppressed the turnover and that there is a tax liability, which has been confirmed vide the impugned order. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Assessment order challenge, consideration of financial documents, discrepancy in reported turnover, challenge to impugned order, statutory appeal.

Assessment Order Challenge:
The judgment pertains to a second round of litigation for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. An assessment order was initially passed against the petitioner, which was challenged in a previous case. The court had set aside the original order and remitted the case back for a fresh order. Subsequently, a new pre-revision notice was issued to the petitioner, calling for the production of financial documents related to the assessment year.

Consideration of Financial Documents:
The petitioner claimed to have appeared for a personal hearing and submitted Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheets, and Ledger. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the sales turnover and purchase details for the relevant period to support their case that the taxable turnover was below the threshold requiring only 0.5% tax payment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act.

Discrepancy in Reported Turnover:
The Additional Government Pleader for the respondents argued that there was a significant discrepancy between the reported sales turnover and the purchase data available in the departmental web portal. The petitioner had reported a much lower sales turnover compared to the actual purchases made, leading to a substantial difference in turnover figures.

Challenge to Impugned Order:
After considering arguments from both parties, the court found no merit in the challenge to the impugned order. The court noted that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the reported turnover difference and the alleged tax liability. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have responded adequately to the pre-revision notice instead of merely submitting copies of financial documents.

Statutory Appeal:
Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the respondents were not at fault for passing the impugned order. The petitioner was given the liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within 30 days from the date of receiving the court's order. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.